Rob Osborn

The youth program is to help them grow physically, spiritually, intellectually, and socially. Here- 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52) Increasing our relationship with our savior includes learning how to positively interact with God's children through wholesome uplifting activities.

I can testify that our prayers are heard directly by the Father. It is in Him that we address and in so doing He directly hears us. Now, the Father may answer our prayers through a multitude of means and people, but know this- we have a direct connection straight to the Father through prayer.

It's not just our religion that has the traditional definition of family. I don't care what the world thinks, a gay couple isn't a family, they are just a gay couple, nothing more nothing less. If they have children then they are a gay couple that have children.

We shouldn't be swayed into the world's use of the world. So far, the church hasn't been swayed into the worldly definition of family. And, it needn't be either. I agree that a child or children in a single parent home is still a family. Where I strongly disagree is with stating a gay couple and their afoptive children is a family. They are not a family.

The church never refers to gay couples as a "family". Not only from the top in SLC but also at the local levels. Gay couples are sometimes discussed in ward council, presidency mtgs., etc, and they are always discussed in the context of couple, partners, etc, and never as a "family". I feel it important to not acknowledge them as something we feel is so important. They are the opposite of family.

I feel it counterproductive to declare a gay couple as a "family". They clearly are not, nor will be in eternity. If the church teaches that families can be together forever it's a disservice to acknowledge a gay couple as a "family" as it may send the wrong message that they have an eternal status and divine protection.

The reality is that a gay couple doesn't equate to "family". And in my book, a gay couple joined together by a judge does not define them as "married". Marriage is defined only as the lawful union between man and woman.

Humm, that's not been my experience. Most go by either the anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon. Doing a search on the internet and there are many many sites/people that claim to be "anti-Mormon" and "ex-Mormon". This truly is Christ's church on the earth. If they are against our church they are against Christ's church, plain and simple. This is my point. It seems like it's one thing to say they are against Mormons but totally different to be against Christ. It proves to me that the name "Mormon" has no real power, or has lost its power over time.

It kind of proves a point though. (BTW, I agree that anti-Christ dialogue is not productive to positive conversation with those disaffected) We have come to associate "Mormon" as a generic label. Mormon however is/was a real person who we revere as a great prophet that led his nation in a final spiritual and temporal struggle of his people. The problem is we have kind of relegated his name down with the dogs in many ways. In many disaffected circles the name "Mormon" has become kind of a hiss and byword. It's thus why in these circles it's easy to disassociate oneself from anything to do with "the Mormons". But, things change rather drastically when we interject the name "Jesus Christ". But why should it be any different? It's because words/names have power. And, some words or names have more power than others. In that same context the name "Mormon" has lost its reverence.

Thanks. I will change it

Those who leave the church with utter disgust have been called "anti-Mormons". But, seeings how we were never members of Mormon's church it makes it rather unique. We are members of Christ's church. So, in reality shouldnt those utterly disaffected be called "anti-Christs"? This is proof in yet another unique prophetic way that President Nelsonn is correct in identifying the use of Christs name as powerful. Now, of course the anti-Christs will deny this label but by that same standard they judge with so too must the logic stand. Of course, they dont want to be labeled as anti-Christs but yet their very fruits show they truly have forsaken Christ.

The MDDB is not a good forum. I am forever banned from there because I chose to stand for truth.

First, the layers exposed are rather interesting. We see a glimpse of many layers, some hundreds of feet deep. What's astounding is that these same layers span vast parts of the continent. In natural circumstances such as annual uniform erosion events carrying sedimentary out to sea we see small un uniform layers. But, in the GC that's not what we see at all.what we see is evidence of large and vast sedimentary deposits that certainly must have layed down rather quickly. Otherwise, you don't get the rather generally uniform layers that span thousands, even tens upon tens of thousands of square miles. But, the real problem here is that the deposits themselves had to come from a rather single source otherwise it just mixes all up and you don't get uniform thick layers. That's problematic in the uniformatarian model because you are talking about a mountain, or uplift source so large and vast it's rather unfathomable. You are talking billions upon billions, even hundreds of billions of square yards of uniform sediment. Where did it come from? Even a single set of mountains eroding cannot even compare to a single percent of what a single layer of sandstone sediment amounts to. In fact, we know from experiment, even simple elementary science, that layers such as we see in the GC only lay down in flood events. A glass jar with different sefiments all shooken up with water and then as the sefiments fall and settle it makes rather uniform thick layers. This is more akin to what we see in the GC. The erosion of the GC probably, or more than likely, happened mostly rather quickly at some time in the past. Large and vast waters and lakes were released as rapid uplift of the land was happening that carved out the GC in a series of catastrophic events.

Perhaps some religionists chalk up unknowns to God just does it. Where the rubber meets the road is that for folks like myself, things like the Grand Canyon as explained by secularism just doesn't make sense. It's as if they just make these things up, quickly move to the next theory and hope no one seriously uses their brain to figure out how utterly ridiculous their stories are. Catastrophism theory perfectly explains things like the Grand Canyon. But, the scientific community for the most part don't want to hear it. Why? Because the Bible may actually be right, and they can't live with that reality. They have their god, the very face of atheism, they don't want Him, the true God in any of their work. Why, because atheism is the new god of their worship and it's paycheck is the honor and pride of man. It's the honest truth.

Secularism isnt tolerant to religious ideas at all, especially if it involves discussion on origins and our divinity. Secularism wants to dumb us down, relegate us with animals, and mute any voice that speaks up against secularism. Institutions such as the NCSE were purposefully put in place to silence religious ideas on the public stage. Science as defined by scholars and supported by them has increasingly become more secular. It creeps into all institutions. All truth should lead to God. Science is increasingly against tge concept of God and divine purpose. Thats reality.

Anon, welcome. I have been kicked out of every LDS board except this one. I believe you are safe.

Another facet of secularism is a seemingly brainwashing that occurs in that it teaches those who are of a religious conviction won't find the truth. I believe that's what you are saying. The reality though is just the opposite. People of a highly religious conviction have access to truths the secular world laugh and mock at. Back to the Grand Canyon where all the strata is exposed, we can literally see tens of thousands of square miles of sedimentary layers. Secularism teaches these were uniformly laid in rather slow stages of deposit in a constantly encroaching and retreating shallow sea. The problem with this theory is that nowhere on Earth where shallow seas exist do we see evidence of this magnitude. They don't want to discuss it either. They refuse to acknowledge other possibilities that are more probable. Why? Because it may lead to discrediting their paradigm. Now, like I said before, regardless of how long or quick those layers really formed, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that we look at things as they really are, not through the secularists political protocol of advancing their private agendas.

I love truth, I gravitate to it. I am constantly searching for that which is true and in the process detecting that which is false. Nothing bothers me more than deceptive practices in the fields of gaining and teaching knowledge. It seems that much of secularism is political in nature and deception at its finest. I remember going to the Grand Canyon when I was very young. I remember all the stories told to me how all the visible layers were formed and then how they were eroded away. I grew suspect of those stories over the years. Long story short, regardless of how long it took for layers to form and then later to be eroded away, we have a very deceptive system of teaching that uses political and secular motives rather than truly examining facts.

Fuzzy gray questions. Let me answer this way- There is empirical evidence that the flow of water causes erosion. Theories as to how fast and how destructive over time are theories based on the empirical fact of erosion. In the theory of general relativity we know, or can observe the effects of gravity on light. It's an empirical fact that masses effect light and travel. As to how and why? Well, thus why you have the "theory" of general relativity. Promptings of the spirit cannot be independently observed as of yet to be documented. They are not empirical. Let's say for example a driver has the promptings to suddenly slam on their brakes and in consequence misses running over a child who wandered into the road. The only things empirical here is that the man used his brakes, the child really did wander into the street, etc. Laws as applied in science such as those in thermodynamics are based off empirical evidence such as- energy is only observed to just transfer from one object or source to another. Energy doesn't spontaneously arise or disappear. This is an observed reality and thus empirical.

That's not what I am saying. I am just stating that opinions as for dates of millions of years ago isn't nor can be empirical.

It's all conjecture, that's my point. There isn't "empirical" evidence to solidify dates as factual.

I'm not opposed to science and technology, especially that which advances our technology and lifestyle. What I am opposed to is people running around claiming things such as evolution from a common ancestor as "empirical", or, claiming dinosaurs lived and then died off millions of years ago as "empirical. The only thing empirical in all of the evidence is the fossil record. That's the only part that can be "empirical". Theories as to how long ago they lived and dating methods believed is not "empirical".

You really need to stop using "empirical evidence" in your claims, It's not correct. Empirical evidence cannot be applied to the past of which is not observed nor able to be tested. Those parameters must be met for something to be empirical.

"Empirical: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/empirical You stated- ". For 75+ years the bulk of empirical evidence (with new discoveries and methods) are trending towards evolution, billions of year old earth and that intelligent humanoids using tools walked the earth before the Scriptural account of the fall of Adam and Eve was revealed - and that these humanoids had our same DNA and are no more genetically diverse from modern humans than modern humans are from each other". As to your original statement it is more correct to say- ". For 75+ years the bulk of scientific opinion and theory (with new discoveries and methods) is trending towards evolution, billions of year old earth and that intelligent humanoids using tools walked the earth before the Scriptural account of the fall of Adam and Eve was revealed - and that these humanoids had our same DNA and are no more genetically diverse from modern humans than modern humans are from each other.

And you need to go do some dictionary reading. Start with the word "empirical". Somehow you are absolutely misusing it.